These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

fixing logistics and blob warfare: simultaneous applied dps types
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rikitikitimbo
Vile Drifters
#1 - 2014-08-05 17:35:21 UTC
There has been a great deal of talk over the abuse of logistics and blob warfare in pvp. In its current state to keep a kb green either match or out match logi to win - or stay docked. Some choose to fight and get creative by utilizing proper support ships, focused damage types, ecm, neuts damps, etc. others choose to win by not fighting and avoid losses.

There aren't any suggestions i have seen that do not render a ship class useless or throw off balance severely across the entire spectrum of small gang to mass scale fleets.

My idea:
Allow damage to apply across shields, armor, and hull simultaneously.
This means depleted shields could render higher damage to armor, depleted armor could render higher damage to hull. The hull resists would be reactive to the amount of shields and armor that remains.

Fleets would need to establish a varied range of shield dps armor dps and hull dps as well as the associated logistics to counter.


What this does is remove segregation of shield fleets vs armor fleets. Gives the opportunity to bring multiple rep types on the field.

Because of the creative fittings and number of new unknowns, fleets would not simply be able to anticipate success based on logi count due to the vast number of unknowns.

How does this diffuse blobbing? A smaller fleet can utilize tactics with the correct damage types and firing strategy to eliminate ships on field regardless of logi count.

Ships can utilize utility slots to create new strategies of repping, logistics ships may need lesser secondary bonuses to better cross rep. This means 12 logi on the field may still have obvious holes in dps to the right fc who can take advantage of to still win. It might still result in a loss to the bigger fleet but it gives them a chance to fight when they did not before.


Before you troll it is obvious there is major reworking of logistics and damage / ammo required in order for this to work. I think in the end this would take combat strategy to the next level and create the most exhilarating pvp combat experience ever created.

Please discuss.
Rikitikitimbo
Vile Drifters
#2 - 2014-08-05 17:46:10 UTC
I did not elaborate much because this Is a high level idea but one thing I think needs mentioning is different ammo types would apply different percentages towards armor, shields, and hull. Certain gun classes might favor one damage type slightly over the other.

I take this idea from rock paper scissors. There is always a counter to each move. 50 guys could ultimately lose against 30 if the smaller fleet was proactive and smart enough to use the correct counter proactively in battle.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#3 - 2014-08-05 18:28:33 UTC
What about people who aren't in fleets? You want people with active tanks to start fitting shield, armor and hull reps?

Please, for the love of Bob. When you're going to suggest global changes, consider not only the ways it can be exploited but also how it will affect people who aren't in the little box you're trying to tinker with.
Bullet Therapist
FT Cold Corporation
#4 - 2014-08-05 19:01:20 UTC
I've toyed from time to time with the idea of damage bleed-through as a mental exorcise, but as the game exists currently I think that there would have to be too many changes to the current damage and tank system to make it possible.

I'm not usually one to defend high-sec mission runners (though it applies anomalies and complexes too) but think about the people that depend on these activities for their income. If you introduce a change like this you immediately change the way that everyone generates isk by fighting rats. I know it's a pretty shallow example, but it still shows how changes like these have unintended consequences.
Rikitikitimbo
Vile Drifters
#5 - 2014-08-05 19:03:52 UTC
For solo it wouldn't change much as far as damage goes.

Let's say neutron blasters with antimatter had a damage projection of 40 percent armor 35 percent shield and 25 percent hull.


What we could have is a local omni rapper that took charges for armor rep type. Say if your armor is depleting faster than shields put in the other charge.

The charges could rep all three types but have a marginal weak resistance type or have a focused 80% strength on one type depending on which charge u load?
Rikitikitimbo
Vile Drifters
#6 - 2014-08-05 19:10:02 UTC
Repper *
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#7 - 2014-08-05 19:41:11 UTC
I get the relation and immersion want for damage done damage dealt from different sources to different applications, but this is more then a bit too complex and also we have extra shields and armor types for those kind of weapon classes or rather damage types which in theory cover exactly this.

All in all you are shifting damage types to damage class with the same system renaming it slightly and making it worse, for the game and logically, why shields and armor if you are still gonna explode at 0% hull. Every ship will fit for max hull resist boost, rep for max defense and every attacker will fit for max hull damage application, nothing is solved, you go from versatility to must have.

And all this tastes a bit to much of a sneak RR attack which will come next if people would accept the basic premise. So I am calling it out early !

Is this a sneak RR thread ? Cause the other ones just got locked and seems highly suspicious.
Rikitikitimbo
Vile Drifters
#8 - 2014-08-05 21:01:52 UTC
Rarely visit forums so I am unaware if what you meant by r r sneak attack.

I personally love the current system except the one caveat that you either break reps and win or don't and lose.

There aren't many close calls, it is always leaning towards a one sided fight or comes down to which side can escalate to drop more caps. I think if this was implemented you would see more active engagements instead of seeing guys say nope they have 7 logi we have 5 we aren't undocking.

As a final note we tend to field support ships to overcome the logi or blobbing issues but I just wanted to proactively throw out an idea, a long shot, that puts a curve ball into pvp mechanics that destroys the break or no break logi mechanics we currently have.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#9 - 2014-08-05 21:06:07 UTC
See, this is what I meant with sneak RR.

RR threads appear and get locked daily here. So fishing with another suggestion then steering it into the direction of an RR discussion, whine or rant is not unusual. And you already started to talk more about RR then the prime suggestion, so here we go ...
Rikitikitimbo
Vile Drifters
#10 - 2014-08-05 21:07:17 UTC
From a realistic standpoint dying from hull explosion with shields left is equal to a tanks cockpit catching fire and decimating the pilots while the structure itself remains somewhat intact. I also want to reiterate the balancing in damage types and resistances would not allow a ship or fleet to head shot a hull easily.

Essentially a ship with even half shields and armor would be virtually impossible to kill it's hull due to the reactive hull resistances.

The way I meant for this to work is still requiring killing shields and armor but it would take gull damage along the way and require two logi logistics types to keep it afloat instead of one. As I said currently it's alpha 'd if dps > logi, or warp out we don't have the dps
Rikitikitimbo
Vile Drifters
#11 - 2014-08-05 21:09:48 UTC
YYou've got me wrong.. i fly logistics a lot and favor the current mechanic over nerf in logi. I am just trying to open a discussion oon new pvp mechanics that would restructure how fleets operate big and small and remove the welp or win state of eve
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#12 - 2014-08-05 21:14:19 UTC
Rikitikitimbo wrote:
I also want to reiterate the balancing in damage types and resistances would not allow a ship or fleet to head shot a hull easily.



So you mean fleet would have 2 wings fire in rapid succession to destroy shield, armor and hull in order with 3 different fits?

Or do you actually leave resist as good as they are right now and render alpha somethign totally useless over sustained DPS because somehow you can't wreck something rapidly because :reasons:?
Rikitikitimbo
Vile Drifters
#13 - 2014-08-05 21:47:14 UTC
The switching of ammo would put a concentration of fire on 2 or 1 predominant resistance type.

Ammo1: 70% dps armor only
Ammo2: 50% dps armor 30% shield
Ammo3: 30 % armor 30 shield 30 hull

Remember hull resistances are related to shield and armor amount

Hull resistances could be set to nullify a percentage of armor and shield combined.
For example:
Shield is at 60% armor is at 30%
Hull resistances would be at 90%
At which point bleed through in hull occurs. This means hull damage doesn't occur unless a ship is already dying.


Both dps and logi could proactively switch to focus on different types strategically but the tank vs dps is now fluid instead of a hard static that occurs at undock.
LT Alter
The Terrifying League Of Dog Fort
Deepwater Hooligans
#14 - 2014-08-05 23:01:14 UTC
There are much better ways to go about solving the problems with logistics. Most of those 'better ways' don't involve this toss up change of all the history of eve balancing and metas. This change would constitute rebalancing every ship in eve. Those facts alone are grounds to deny this change a chance to ever take place. However the change itself would result in unilateral pvp where every ship has likeness to others with similar bonuses to survive. It would remove the entirety of the aspect of differences in pvp.

Sure it may have more likeness to reality, but we're playing a game of internet spaceships, who cares about reality when the fantasy is much more fun.